Wiktionary:Information desk

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where newcomers can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

February 2017

Two questionsEdit

Hello, is there a gathering place for people editing and adding words belonging to the same language to discuss things like what is being done, what needs to be done, etc.? A bit like portals or projects on Wikipedia. Second question, is there a plan to make the different Wiktionaries more homogenous, template or layout wise? Orgyn (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of the relevant "About language X" page (e.g. Wiktionary talk:About French) is often a good place to coordinate work on a specific language, or else the Beer Parlor, but of course that isn't language-specific. I don't think there's any attempt to homogenize the different language versions of Wiktionary (en-wikt, de-wikt, fr-wikt, etc.). It would be an enormous undertaking and require consensus at all projects, which is probably unattainable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Orgyn: Regarding harmonization of the various editions of Wiktionary, you can see d:Wikidata:Wiktionary (which is Wikidata's discussion about integrating structured data into this project) and m:OmegaWiki (which is a proposal to adopt OmegaWiki). The road toward anything like that is several years away, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! The "About xxx" page is exactly what I was looking for. The Wikidata project is very interesting! Orgyn (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference ListEdit

I entered a second definition in "Dunder" and tried to include a reference, but I must have not done it correctly because it does not show on the save page. Skelta Skelta (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Skelta: We don't have w:en:Template:Reflist here, so you can just use the MediaWiki tag <references /> to generate them. There are several templates in Category:Citation templates if you'd like to convert it from the way I edited the entry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that this definition is distinct from the one already present? DTLHS (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Latin vowel lengthsEdit

Sometimes different sources give different vowel lengths.

  • L&S omits the length of the last syllable or the ending of the nominative singular. — This is simply a deficiency of L&S.
  • Georges has -o instead of -ō for (a) the verb ending for 1.ps.sg. ind.pres. act. (e.g. laudo) and (b) 3rd declension nouns with genitive -onis (e.g. regio). — Maybe Georges omits the ending in this case similar to L&S or maybe there were other views about the length of the o.
  • In case of foreign words and some New Latin words the vowel length might be unknown or disputed.
    • Finnish Nuntii Latini once had gāsum but changed it to gasum in 2016. — Maybe they had a long vowel because Finnish and German have a long vowel in their word for gas and maybe they changed it because Romance languages have a short vowel. In this case a short vowel might be more likely, but there might be other cases.
  • Some words were different sources give different lengths: iuxta/juxta, some forms of lugeo, punctum and punctus, stella.
    It seems like older or Romance sources (French Gaffiot, English L&S) prefer short vowels, while younger and Germanic sources (German Georges, German Pons, Dutch LaNe) prefer long vowels. Lewis' Elementary Latin Dictionary which is younger than Lewis' and Short's Latin-English Lexicon and Frieze-Dennison's lexicon to Vergil's Aeneid are in between both.
    Maybe it's similar to iuxta#Usage notes, that the origin implies a long vowel while Romance descendents imply a short vowel.


  • Should there be a category or/and an appendix for words with disputed vowel lengths?
  • Are there patterns?
    iuxta/juxta, forms of lugeo, punctum and punctus contain u followed by multiple consonants. unctus and unctor for example also have an u followed by multiple consonants and again give different dictionaries different vowel lengths.
  • Could there be a template to add information like in iuxta#Usage notes?

- 05:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@ There should definitely be a category for Latin words with disputed vowel lengths. In Latin, when a vowel is followed by multiple consonants at a syllabic boundary, the first of those consonants is applied to the first syllable (with some exceptions, vide infra), rendering it heavy, meaning that that vowel's quantity is hidden from inference by scansion; that is the pattern you're noticing. We could indeed have a template for such information; cf. {{U:la:stop+liquid poetic stress alteration}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

manoeuvering versus manoevring: keep or omit the final e in British English?Edit

Many dictionaries prefer manoeuvring for both the gerund and the substantive. Thus your entry offers, for the moment, a minority view as if it was standard.

Although the entry manoeuvering doesn't say anything about standardness, the entry manoeuver does say it's a nonstandard alternative spelling (which in my opinion is a euphemism for "misspelling", but other people may feel differently). Certainly the most common spellings are manoeuvre in GB-based spelling and maneuver in US-based spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Calling people "things"Edit

Consider this sentence:

"I see three things in this room: a teacup, a man and a dog."

Is it wrong and/or offensive to call people "things" in English like this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: No. A "thing" can be an object like a cup or a bicycle--calling a person a "thing" in that example would be offensive. A "thing" can also be basically the same thing as a noun—a person, place, object, state of affairs, or idea. "My favorite things in the world are roller coasters and my grandma" is not at all offensive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It depends on how you emphasise thing too. Unless one were to stress the word thing, implying that the person in the room is not to be considered more than a "thing", I think it would be fine. I wouldn't call a person a "thing" though, but I think referring to persons in groups of nouns that consist of things as "things" is okay. Leasnam (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thing can be an affectionate term: you silly thing!, you sweet thing!, you handsome thing!, you old thing!, you clever thing!, she's a pretty little thing! —Stephen (Talk) 05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As suggested above, it's often okay in a general sense, but it would be strange and impolite to use it for individuals, e.g. "I need to talk to that thing over there". Equinox 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

shut the fuck upEdit

Why was the entry shut the fuck up deleted (eight years ago)? It is a legitimate phrase, but the page can’t be recreated. Why does STFU exist but not shut the fuck up?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, this looks like a SOP of shut up and the fuck. Note that the latter has a sense "Used after verbs forming a part of a phrasal verb [...]" with examples like "Get the fuck out [...]" and "Drive the fuck off [...]". STFU is an abbreviation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
STFU having an entry does not automatically legitimise one for its expansion; e.g. people might want to know what YHBT stands for, but the expansion you have been trolled is a normal sentence, not requiring an entry. Equinox 13:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Kansai dialect accent infoEdit

I haven't edited anything before, but I'd like to add Kansai dialect accent information for the Japanese word entries. I've seen that someone has added the accent information for the Tokyo dialect and that they used the NHK accent dictionary as a source. I have a different book I can use for Kansai-ben accents (全国アクセント辞典), so this endeavor won't be an issue. However, I saw that the Tokyo dialect had IPA transcriptions but no source for these. Are IPA transcriptions created from the editor's phonological knowledge of the dialect?

--于雪森 (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yu Xuesen Welcome to Wiktionary!
The 標準語 IPA is generated by code at Module:ja-pron.
As for Kansaiben, if it is of interest, we do have a handful of pre-existing entries which include Osaka pitch accent (but only a handful—most added very recently by User:MihailJP).
(While we're on the topic, and I don't mean to derail your original question, but is terminology such as "heiban" really applicable to Kansai-ben? such as at 木#Pronunciation_2, where formatting intended for Tokyo-style heiban accent is applied over "きい".)
suzukaze (tc) 06:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the 標準語 IPA! That makes a lot of sense (It'd probably be better to not add IPA for Kansai-ben since I can't ensure its accuracy).
You're totally not derailing this; I actually was just looking at the entry for 木 too and was quite perplexed how it could be called heiban. At least for 標準語・東京弁、that definition is workable, but since Kansai-ben can have a low flat pitch or a high flat pitch, it seems quite erroneous to call it heiban. The accent dictionary I have uses a system of numbering, but it's sort of arcane, and I don't think it would be very useful or intuitive for the reader. It might be better to just use the typical "line over the kana" format, especially since Kansai-ben can have really unusual accent patterns that are impossible in 標準語 (こばん、for example).
—This unsigned comment was added by Yu Xuesen (talkcontribs) at 18:50, 14 February 2017.
Maybe code for IPA could be developed for Kansai-ben as well. The current Module:ja-pron code works by processing merely kana.
Maybe we could add both the lines and the numbers, if the numbers have a method to their madness. wikipedia:ja:京阪式アクセント#類別 also seems to have some sort of numbered category. (@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, kc kennylau, MihailJP, Wyang, any opinions? )suzukaze (tc) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
IPA code for Kansai-ben would be fantastic, but I have entirely no idea how I would go about creating that. :/
Both lines and numbers would be awesome. It might take me a second to figure out how to work that. There seems to already be a template, but it might have to be edited, yeah?
于雪森 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine it would be too difficult to find references about the phonology of Kansai-ben.
For the lines and stuff, currently the search results above use Template:ja-accent-common but the template is designed for Tokyo accent (hence the "heiban" stuff, I guess). Probably needs reworking. Alternatively, Module:ja-pron actually does both lines and IPA for the standard dialect, and similar code would also do both for Kansai-ben. —suzukaze (tc) 08:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Can the developers change the font for mobile (iOS)?Edit

Hi Wikionary, can the font be changed so that it displays San Francisco instead of Helvetica (Neue)? I find it easier to read when on mobile. Keep the font Georgia as it is. This should also apply globally across Wikimedia projects. Thank you! – AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 05:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: This is only a partial solution but you can edit User:Awesomemeeos/common.css to get this outcome for yourself when you are logged in. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf It does not work for mobile view. Only works for desktop view. The link is actually hereAWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 06:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos: Wow. You learn something new every day. I'd recommend you post to phabricator: if we can't change our own settings on mobile or if there is a font that is clearly much more readable on mobile. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing transliterated names (separate from native given names)?Edit

Currently, Category:Gothic given names is (with one reconstructed exception) full of names that are, well, not Gothic given names, like 𐌰𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐍃𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌸 (Aileisabaiþ, Elizabeth). They're transcriptions of Biblical names which are not attested outside the Bible as being used as names for actual Gothic persons. I'm intending to remove the entries in that category from that specific category, but I think it'd still be neat to have a category listing which transliterated names are attested in Gothic texts (transliteration is a very valuable source of information on pronunciation and spelling conventions).

So I was wondering if there is a precedent or system in place for this: a category which lists given names from other languages that are not in use as actual given names in the "target language", but have been adapted to the writing system of that language -- e.g. Nebuchadnezzar in English. (There are also attested actual Gothic names in their original Gothic spellings, in the two Ostrogothic Deeds and in the Gothic Calendar, which do have a place in the Gothic given name category and which I will add sometime in the near future.) — Kleio (t · c) 17:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar itself is in CAT:en:Biblical characters and CAT:en:Individuals, but not CAT:English given names. Probably 𐌰𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐍃𐌰𐌱𐌰𐌹𐌸 could be treated the same way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That should do for now. — Kleio (t · c) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Force spellingEdit

How to force spelling. I search of can create the word "Spolí", but system redirects me to "spoli", which is something else.--Juandev (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are redirected it means there is no article for it. If you want to create an entry for a word like this type the word and select "Containig..." there you will see an appropriate red link.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added an also template to the spoli entry. You can use the red link there to add Spoli. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Given names of famous peopleEdit

uShaka is obviously a very famous Zulu name, and definitely warrants inclusion, but I'm not sure how to define it. It's known as the name of this particular person, but are there other people with this name as well? That is, should I define it as w:Shaka or {{given name|zu}} or both? —CodeCat 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, do both. But the given name should come first — AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 10:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you nominate yourself as an autopatrollerEdit

Hi anyone, is it possible for this to happen? — AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 10:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Malware on Wiktionary?Edit

My virus blocker just started detecting all sorts of malware on discussion pages. The specific threats it identifies seem to be in anything from timeclocks in signatures to links to specific section headings. Any idea what might be causing this? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also blocking me on some pages from viewing my edits. It looks like the edit was saved, but it stays on the edit page and my virus blcoker tells me a threat has been detected when I click "Save changes." It's very strange. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What virus blocker do you have? What's the specific message? DTLHS (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I have Avast, and it tells me a threat has been detected, listing the infection as "VBS:Malware-gen" and the process as "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with Wiktionary- you probably actually have a virus. DTLHS (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I thought I might, though I've never had one like this before. The virus scan hasn't turned anything up yet, but we shall see. It just seemed odd that it was only affecting Wiktionary (so far, anyway). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Could also check if it replicates on another browser. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I just checked on Google Chrome and even just opening the main page set it off. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like this is all me and probably has nothing to do with Wiktionary. :P Somehow I ended up with dozens of infected files since I last ran a virus scan two weeks ago. I've had many viruses, but none quite like this one... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


I requested a definition of this word to confirm my own understanding of the word ' ensorcelled' @ 19:43 (7:30 p.m.) Pacific Standard time (U.S.). I was surprised to see it had last been modified at 14:43. Does this mean someone had just modified it at 2:43 p.m. Estonian or 2:43 p.m. U.S. Pacific Time? Either one of these would have been just hours before I looked it up; that's an amazing coincidence! Good anticipating!~ ~ ~ ~ —This unsigned comment was added by Elainek. (talkcontribs) at 7:13, February 22, 2017 (UTC).

Wiktionary's time is UTC, just so you know. —CodeCat 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You can change the time zone in your preferences. PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What does "lb" mean in a word definition?Edit

I am editing a word to add a new definition, and the other definitions have tags like {{lb|en|uncountable}}. I know what uncountable and en refer to, but I have no idea what lb means. I don't want to just copy it, because I don't want to introduce something incorrect. So, does anybody know what this means, and where can I find a full list of things like this? Not sure if it is related to formatting or meaning. Proxyma (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a short form of another template, and it means label. It is generally used for various sorts of non-gloss information pertaining to a certain sense of a term. Putting uncountable in this template (you can view its documentation on the template page, {{label}}) makes sure it is formatted automatically (italicized, placed between parentheses) and that it links to the right appendix page explaining what that particular label means. Significantly, it also makes sure that the term is included in the relevant category, in this case, Category:English uncountable nouns. Besides uncountable, other labels can be anything from transitive (of verbs) or slang for any language, to language-specific markers like Medieval Latin (for Latin) or US (for English, specifying that it is restricted in usage mostly to the US) just to list a few examples. It's a bit of a catch-all, really. — Kleio (t · c) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
To get a link to a template without triggering it, use the 'template' template: {{template|lb}} or {{temp|lb}}. If I now take that out of 'nowiki' it will display as a link to {{lb}}, the documentation for lb. -- 15:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Or just put Template:lb (or whatever) into the search box. Equinox 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everybody, this has been very helpful! Proxyma (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone please help me with this phrase.Edit

So, this show is about the American Revolution days. This sailor got off a ship, and later was surrounded by these Patriots who mugged him and covered him in a tar and feather coat.

This is the scene where that happened. I'm trying to transcribe this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAbMPt1vXpU

Go to 7:00 .

This is what I got:

MAN: I offered to buy you a drink.

MR. PARKER: I don’t drink.

MAN: That it? Or is you wouldn’t join the toast? Me, Parliament, rot the wretched lotes!

What the heck? I must be getting something completely wrong. I understood the words "Parliament" and "wretched" at least, but I can't understand the word that sounds like "/lots/". The only thing I could possibly think of to fit the context was lotes, a European tree, but that doesn't make any sense. Please help me with this. I need it. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

louts (I have no idea what the sentence means, but it's definitely "louts"). DTLHS (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"May Parliament rot- the wretched louts!" Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I think he also says "is't you wouldn't join the toast". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The infinitive ending in EnglishEdit

Middle English had -en as the infinitive ending, and this was also the ending of the past participle of strong verbs. But in modern English, infinitives have no ending while past participles still do. Why did -en disappear in one instance but not another? —CodeCat 22:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The past participle ending did disappear, but was preserved in a few very common, basic verbs, probably because those forms were encountered early enough in childhood to be learned directly rather than guessed. Perhaps the infinitive wasn't as widely used in those verbs, so analogy from the verbs where it was lost could run its course. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the loss of -en in the infinitive was not a phonological change; not only did many past participles keep their -en, so did adjectives like open, nouns like heaven, and noun forms like oxen. I think it was really a morphological change, where the infinitive in -en was replaced by the bare stem. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Installing Wiktionary for offline useEdit

Hi all,

Do we have a means to install Wiktionary for offline use in, say, Goldendict? That could be easier to use. I see Android app, but I primarily write texts on the desktop. --Gryllida 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gryllida Files containing all of Wiktionary’s data are available for download here (you’ll want the one with pages-meta-current or pages-articles). You can try to find out if your software allows you to import this file.
Something I’ve done before in order to access Wiktionary offline was installing MediaWiki on my computer, but it’s a huge pain in the ass to get it to work properly. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gryllida: Similarly, you can download an offline copy to read with Kiwix but that won't necessarily integrate into Goldendict. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No idea where this fits priority-wise, but it would be nice to have (perhaps in sync with the regular data dumps) some kind of easy, user-friendly "installable" Wiktionary. Most of us happen to be techy people but many people who could benefit from Wiktionary are not. Equinox 10:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Can you explain what you mean by this? What would be the difference between what you are proposing and the offline versions from Kiwix? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

On 'joke' wordsEdit

Is it against the rules of Wiktionary to write pages about joke words such as "y'all'd've"? Thanks in advance. ElliottBelardo (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If they are unattested, then yes. DTLHS (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
See WT:CFI. English terms have to be attested by three usages (and not mentionings). If attestable, they can be added. If unattested, one could add it to WT:LOP#List of English Protologisms. "y'all'd'n't've" - this is not the same as "y'all'd've" but it's similar to it - however "doesn't seem logical" (quoted from there). - 21:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
"Y'all'd've" is a possible construction, and I believe I have actually heard it a couple times. Not sure whether it's attestable or not though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the language?Edit

www.asterix-obelix.nl states that there are Asterix comics in the Attic dialect of Ancient Greek.
What language is that?

  • grc: Ancient Greek (including Middle Greek) which ends in the 15th century
    • This includes Ancient Greek dialects like Attic, Doric etc.
  • el: Modern Greek which begins in the 15th century and is originally spelled with classical diacritics (spiritus, accents), at least by educated Greeks
    • This includes Katharevousa Greek, Demotic Greek, and that mixed Very Modern Greek

The Asterix comics are said to have diacritics. So it's not almost diacriticless Demotic Greek (like from Psycharis) or Very Modern Greek, but Ancient Greek or some other kind of Modern Greek. Of course, it's also no Old Ancient Greek but at best some Modern Ancient Greek.
Anglo-Saxon and Gothic are used in Wikipedia (ang:w:Hēafodtramet and got:w:𐌰𐌽𐌰𐍃𐍄𐍉𐌳𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌹𐌻𐌰𐌿𐍆𐍃; not durably archived, so it fails WT:CFI). Just like that, one could use these Old languages in printed books. In fact, every Ancient, Old, Middle language which has a grammar and a dictionary can be used to write texts which can be printed in books. Was any Ancient, Old, Middle language besides Greek used in printed books? And what language was it or would it be?
Maybe in advance: Modern or New Old languages etc. like Modern Anglo-Saxon or Modern Middle English would be LDLs, so a single citation instead of three citations would be sufficient. And it shouldn't be unlikely that there was one person who published something in a New Old language. - 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say most of those are conlangs that are designed to be as close to the old languages as possible. We do have people trying to add translations in Gothic and various proto-languages for television and various other things that didn't exist when the language was alive. I would exclude from that "undead" languages such as Hebrew, Latin and Sanskrit, which continued to be used as a second language for specialized purposes after they were no longer anyone's first language. I'm a bit conflicted about Cornish and various other languages that are being revived by the descendants of speakers after they completely died out. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm protesting.Edit

I just want to say that anonymous users SHOULD NOT be allowed to edit on Wiktionary (or Wikipedia). A lot of other community wiki, such as OpenStreetMap require logins for editing. This will be beneficial for many reasons:

  1. Less chance of vandalism. Still some vandalism with some accounts may occur, but it will be harder for school students to vandalise, for example.
  2. No need to show your IP address. If an editor does not want to show their location or private life, they can hide their IP address with a username.
  3. More reliable sources. People who are registered usually make better edits than anon. users.

There are many more reasons, but I gotta go now... — AWESOME meeos * (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 08:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: In case you're serious about this, the idea of prohibiting IPs has been brought up many times over the course of 16 years and struck down every time. If you wanted to propose this as a policy discussion, Meta is really the place to do it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: But I'm actually serious about this! — AWESOME meeos * (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos: Fair enough. But I just don't want to see you waste the effort. I've been using Wikipedia since 2003 and started editing through IPs. I have seen this discussion happen many, many times and at this point, it seems very unlikely to change. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Oh god... But it doggone frustrates and irritates me! — AWESOME meeos * (не нажми́те здесь [nʲɪ‿nɐʐˈmʲi.tʲe zʲdʲesʲ]) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of logged-in editors edit less constructively than your average anon editor. — Kleio (t · c) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. And there have been plenty of times when I was browsing Wiktionary on another device and wanted to fix a typo or something. Would have been a pain to log in just for that (especially since I can't remember my password half the time!). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Letting anons edit is important for a billion reasons. List? What? Equinox 03:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I once went through and assessed the last 100 IP edits that had been made at the time, and found that the majority were vandalistic, unconstructive, or required cleanup by another editor. If we had a user with the record of our anons, we would block them, but we never seriously consider ending anonymous editing here. Our values seem to direct us toward allowing it, but it does get in the way of building the dictionary more than it helps to build it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It does come down to "values", and the open-sourciness of Wikimedia. A bit like how most modern liberal political systems give everybody a vote, regardless of who they are. I have noticed very different responses to my Wikipedia editing as named user versus IP. There's more assumption that you won't be back, and can be reverted for not much reason. (And haven't we all had that "heartsink" moment when the person whose protologism we just deleted reappears with a username to battle for its inclusion?) I do also think it's important that we have the patrolling-flag stuff because yes a lot of IP edits are schoolkids messing around, or weird bots. Equinox 03:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editingsuzukaze (tc) 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It's less of a problem from a Wikipedian's perspective because anons can't create new entries there. We might consider that here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I would support that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps something to be said for steering newbie anons to pages like WT:REE and WT:LOP? Then again there's always a certain contingent that will never read anything you shove under their noses. Equinox 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I see lots of bad edits by IPs, but I also see bad edits by throwaway user accounts. Yes, you can permanently block those accounts, but the same person comes right back with another account. Without knowing anything about the IPs used to access an account, using the "block the IP" option when permanently blocking an account is a really bad idea.
The IP used to make an edit can provide lots of useful information through geolocation: you can often tell what part of what country they're editing from, whether they're editing from a company or a school, whether they're using a mobile provider, whether they're using the same IP, or a different one over time. If I see a UK Sky Broadband IP editing Japanese entries, an Indonesian IP editing Finnish or Basque, a northeast-London IP editing sexual or Muslim terminology, a Greek IP editing advanced physics terminology, or a Tennessee/Kentucky IP editing given-name entries, I know exactly who I'm dealing with. Checkusers have access to this information for user accounts, but they have strict rules about how they can use it- precisely because of how much it can tell about the person making the edits.
As for the value of IP edits: there are lots of bad IP edits, but lots of good ones, too. A significant portion of our translations are added by IPs from areas where the languages of the translations are spoken. A significant amount of corrections are done by IPs. We have over 5 million entries- no one person could even visit that many without taking years to do it, and looking through all the content would take far longer still. We have millions of people visiting our entries all the time, so most of the opportunities to spot something wrong involve IPs- it would be a shame to waste all of that. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

the term 'you guys'Edit

Your website says that this is okay to use for men, women, a combination of those genders. I disagree. I think even if you're talking to a gender-mixed group of people, and none of the women in that group mind being labeled 'guys' or being lumped under that label, still, somewhere in the world, that is insulting a woman. What if a few 'guys' or 'men' went out to a restaurant and the waiter or waitress came up and asked "What would you GALS like to eat? I try to use either 'you folks' or 'you people' when talking to more than one person where the genders are mixed. I think that covers all of us. Saying 'you guys' is just an expression can still be hurtful, and I suspect there have been many so-called 'expressions' that have caused tensions, divisiveness, and bad feelings for centuries. You should edit that definition to say that it only covers men, boys, males, or yes, 'guys'. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by Herzi67 (talkcontribs).

@Herzi67: You are certainly correct that there are other who will be offended by this usage—that's the nature of language. We don't say how words should be used (except in a strictly grammatical sense)—simply how they are used. We have many words defined here which are on the face of them patently bigoted, rude, or offensive. A lot of language is inappropriate in many contexts. What do you propose we do about this? Should we scrub all references to offensive language? Should we define who is allowed to use certain terms and in what context? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
We won’t start adding fake information to Wiktionary just because someone is offended by it. Sure, we could add a usage note saying “some people are offended by how this word is used”, but unless you guys is exceptional, we would have to add the same note to half of our English content. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

About Inter-Wiki linkEdit

Hi, whenever I'm going to add any Inter-Wiki Link from BN Wiktionary, some editors suddenly revert this. But I see they are keeping Inter-Wiki links from the others wiki. Whats with problem? ‍‍‍‍~ Moheen (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moheen Reeyad: Good question. Interwiki links here are for the same word defined at each Wiktionary, not the same idea in each language. So at book, we have an interiwki link to which is written in Spanish and describes the English word "book". We do not have a link to which is the Spanish word for "book". Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
To build upon what I just wrote, the Translations header provides translations of a word. Inter-wiki links are just for the same sequence of characters (like "book" or "বই") that are defined in each edition of Wiktionary. There is an abuse filter tag called "bad interwiki" which is automatically made when one of these incorrect interwiki links is added to a page. Please understand that no one here thinks you were abusing Wiktionary—you are obviously trying to help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks for your reply. I understand that point means there are no need to add BN Wiktionary page with non-slimier word. ~ Moheen (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Moheen Reeyad, that's right, Wiktionary interwikis are not like Wikipedia interwikis. In Wiktionary, interwikis can only link identical words. For example, our English word India has a correct Bengali interwiki bn:India (same spelling, same alphabet). Also, our Bengali word সংস্কৃত (sôngskrit) has a correct Bengali interwiki bn:সংস্কৃত. However, you added the interwiki bn:চুড়ি to bangle, but those are not identical and cannot have an interwiki link. Your Bengali entry be:চুড়ি can only have an interwiki to our চুড়ি (cuŗi). —Stephen (Talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalised Templates and Modules?Edit

Hi, I know of regular pages as well as user pages being vandalised, but what about templates and modules? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course. —suzukaze (tc) 10:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks. What else? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 10:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
[1]? Special:Contributions/2A01:CB05:8231:A600:64CC:6B61:25F0:B8A2? —suzukaze (tc) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Most widely used templates and modules are semiprotected anyway, so they're less likely to be vandalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Synonyms for ear rapeEdit

Anybody know any synonyms to "horrible sounds or music"? If so, please add them, because I feel like there's a more common term. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

racket. —Stephen (Talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
cacophony. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the etymology of noise is the same as nausea. It's a little afield but an antonym would be ear worm and an inverse for images would be eye bleach. Maybe that helps. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Using "horse" instead of "mare"Edit

Please confirm if I'm right, or correct me if I'm wrong. If I have three female horses, I believe I can say "Here are my three horses." I don't have to say "Here are my three mares." I believe "horse" is gender-neutral, and doesn't imply that the horses are male. Right? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct. If you want to specify that a horse is a male, you can call it a stallion (or a gelding, if it's castrated). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Red flowerEdit

What is the thing on their chests called? Wyang (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks kind of like a rosette, but I don't know if that's the best word for it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, red sash. —Stephen (Talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Or a red armillary sash (浑天绫). —Stephen (Talk) 02:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Umm thanks Stephen. I should have been clearer. Is there an English name for the red flower the kids wear in front of their chests? Thanks! Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You were clear, but I don't think there is a set English term for it. All I can think of is a red sash (or red armillary sash). I realize that this ignores the flower itself. If you really need to specify the flower, I think you would have to describe it. Maybe something like a red (or vermilion, or cinnabar red) sash embellished with an ornate (or ostentatious, or ornamental) red rosette. —Stephen (Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Added to 紅花. Wyang (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

en femmeEdit

I added a quotation to en femme, trying to follow info at WT:QUOTE and parrot, but when I preview or save, I don't see it rendered. Editing again shows the text was saved, it's just not rendering. What am I missing? (Please ping; not watching.) Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what the problem is. The instructions at WT:QUOTE in the Raw code example are misleading. You cannot include the hash character in the raw code, as the example seems to imply; that will make whatever you type on that line not appear. This raw code example should be fixed on that page. (I guess I could do it, but being a newbie, maybe will wait around a bit before editing policy pages.) Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The section you are referring to is for placing quotations under the definition line, as I have done to the entry in the latest revision. DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

My first article: small penis syndromeEdit

I created small penis syndrome, which was deleted as an attack page in 2010. I may have been familiar with Wiktionary, but I have never contributed to Wiktionary before. What else can I do here about the page? --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I have made some formatting improvements; compare this diffAWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I added some more info about the ref. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Case sensitivity in wiktionaryEdit

I looked for the German word 'Stab' except that I entered all lower-case, and it did not match. I guessed that this might be the problem, and did a second search with the correct case, which succeeded. What is supposed to happen? Case-sensitive matching is highly unhelpful for German-language searches where the user does not know whether the word in question is a noun or not, or has only heard the word, or does not even know what language they are dealing with. —This unsigned comment was added by CecilWard (talkcontribs).

Yes, years ago we had long discussions about this. It was finally decided that case sensitivity was by far the best choice. If you type the wrong case (stab), just look at the top left of the entry and you will see the other case listed, Stab. You should become comfortable with this arrangement soon enough. Besides that, the interwiki links are designed to link identical words (identical in script, spelling, case) among all of the wiktionaries. If we did not have Stab in the proper upper case, it would not link to de:Stab in the German wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@CecilWard: Not only is case sensitivity necessary between languages but within them. Compare August/august and Polish/polish just in English. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin sufficiamEdit

Latin sufficiam should say present subjunctive as well as future indicative (as regam). See Ovid Amores 2.10.24.

I have added that. Note that this is a dictionary anyone can edit, so next time you see something missing, try adding it yourself! Just copy the existing formatting and ask me for help if you need it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Confessions of a LexicographerEdit

Check this: https://longreads.com/2017/03/14/falling-in-love-with-words-the-secret-life-of-a-lexicographer/Justin (koavf)TCM 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Or if you want a review: http://www.avclub.com/review/word-word-makes-surprisingly-convincing-case-irreg-252237?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feedsJustin (koavf)TCM 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone who is not me was blockedEdit

Where can one request admin attention for vandalism, uncivil behavior and the like, is there an analogue to Wikipedia's administrator Noticeboard? 05:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No. We have a page for ongoing vandalism, but it sounds like you have some sort of beef about someone being blocked. You can discuss it here if you like. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Offensive comments towards me have been made and repeated after a polite note to stop it, most notably by you. Attempts to remove the offending comments were reverted. This derailed an ongoing discussion that was practically ended by a block of my IP. I was neither warned beforehand, nor did I ignore an obvious consensus. Multiple commentators agreed that a proof of the disputed claim would be almost impossible. Add to that a loose moral when it comes to IP users and I can only conclude gross misconduct.
I insist the requirements for sources for oft disputed edits should be held to a higher standard, but that comes down to a policy discussion.
Comments from admins who are not involved in the Wiktionary Reconstruction: namespace would be most welcome, to maintain neutrality.
Given the aggravations against me, I assume you might take the highroad about what could be malignantly interpreted as block evasion. At least I took the lack of an immediate range block as token of grace. Concerning the lack of a fair warning of the block in the relevant thread I can only assume the prevalent disdain for IP users was responsible. So, I guess, I have to formally request permission to continue the discussion where it left off. 18:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

is it possible to extract the dictionary files used in Wiktionary?Edit

hey guys just trying to get a csv of a dictionary and wondering if wiktionary allows me to do it?

also if it doesnt does anyone have any other sources of a possible dictionary csv or a file that can be converted to csv?

You can download dumps of Wiktionary here, but converting to .csv might be an issue. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Or Google "dictionary csv". --WikiTiki89 15:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Examples of blocked AutropatrollersEdit

Hi Wiktionary, can you tell me of anyone that fits into these categories? (Whether being blocked could be edit wars, pranks, trolling etc). — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 23:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Autopatroller is a title given to someone who is trusted, so that the other admins do not need to waste time checking up on his edits. Most often, when an autopatroller is blocked, the block is temporary, and when it ends, he still has the autopatroller bit. If someone who has the autopatroller bit is indefinitely blocked, he would lose the bit, since people who are blocked have no need of an autopatroller bit. By the same token, if an admin is indefinitely blocked (such as Wonderfool), he also loses the admin bit, since people who are blocked permanently do not need to be admins. So Wonderfool (and his many incarnations, most recently User:Quadcont) would fit in your category. —Stephen (Talk) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, @Stephen G. Brown, on that note, may I pretty please become an autopatroller? — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Does it really matter? Just wait until someone nominates you. If you're overeager to not have people checking your edits, that doesn't exactly inspire other people with confidence. Just be patient and make good edits, and you won't have to wait long. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos, autopatroller does not confer any powers or privileges to you. All it does is tell the other editors that nobody needs to check your work anymore. As long as anyone, even one person, feels that they need to check your edits for whatever reason, you can't get autopatroller. You will get autopatroller when the editors who are checking your work decide that checking behind you never shows any problems, and that having to check your edits is a waste of their time. When they decide it's a waste of their time, they will gladly put you in for autopatroller so that they are no longer notified to have a look. My point is, autopatroller is not granted to you for you, it is for those who have to check on you. Autopatroller will do nothing for you, but it relieves others of drudgery. Nobody enjoys checking other editors' edits, and as soon as they trust you, they will nominate you ... so that they no longer have to waste their time checking on entries that are always good. —Stephen (Talk) 06:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Apparently this word is also used in context of buildings or structures, but, as far as I can ascertain, only by Chinese authors. Please google "Lectotype optimization". I don't know what to make of it. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

  • Misspelling of "tectotype" (to mean a type of roof)? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

forem, sumEdit

Are the entries forem, fores, foret and sum complete?
Georges has: "forem, es, et etc. [...] 1) = essem, esses etc. [conjunctive/subjunctive imperfect] [...]: [...] so auch in der Coniug. periphr. beim Partic. Fut. [...] – 2) = fuissem, es etc. [conjunctive/subjunctive plu(squam)perfect], Plaut. u. Ov. Vgl. Brix Plaut. mil. 49."
Brix (full title: Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von Julius Brix. Viertes Bändchen: Miles Gloriosus. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1883, in English Selected comedies of Plautus. For the use in schools explained by Brix. Fourth small volume. Second edition, p. 29) has

"AR. Quid ín Cappadocia, úbi tu quingentós simul, / Ni hebés machaera fóret, uno ictu occíderas?"

with the note

"49. foret im Sinne von fuisset wie Trin. 832 837. Truc. I 1, 73. [foret in the sense of fuisset] — occideras für occidisses doch wohl nur aus metrischem Grunde [occideras for occidisses but likely only out of metrical reasons], [...]"

Some translations of the passage from Plautus' Miles gloriosus:

  • "And how about that time in Cappadocia, sir, when you would have slain five hundred men all at one stroke, if your sword had not been dull?" (Paul Nixon, Plautus with an English translation, vol. III, p.128f.) — had been is pluperfect in 19th century English grammars, without if it's indicative and with if it's subjunctive.
  • "What feats did you perform in Cappadocia! Where at one single stroke you had cut off five hundred men together, if your sword had not been blunt" (Bonnell Thornton, Comedies of Plautus, vol. I, p.130)
  • "Und dann in Cappadocien, wo Fünfhundert du mit einem Streiche, wenn dir nicht der Pallasch stumpf geworden wäre, niederhiebst." (Wilhelm Binder, Lustspiele, vol. II, p. 17) — wäre geworden is pluperfect of werden


  • Can forem etc. be pluperfect and not only imperfect? The answer seems to be 'yes'.
  • Are these Old Latin uses, or "misuses" out of metrical reasons? Plautus would be Old Latin.

- 12:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)